Haloragis philippinensis
Content
Description
Perennial herb, 9-30 cm, not or little branched, with a number of stems from the base, each ap-pressed-hairy and with ascending apex.
Leaves decussate, ovate- to obovate-oblong, or lanceolate, 4-25 by 2½-7mm, often appressed-hairy on both sides or the upper surface glabrous, margin on both sides with 2-10 small teeth;
Sepals ¾-1 by ½ mm, at the base often somewhat thickened, glabrous.
Petals 1¼-2 mm, the midrib dorsally mostly hairy.
Stamens 4, episepalous;
Fruit nodding, ovoid to broad-ellipsoid, rarely globular, c. 1¼-1.5 by 1-1¼ mm, with a distinct, ± triangular thickening at the base of the sepals, glabrous or with straight, appressed hairs, surface smooth or granular.
Distribution
Asia-Tropical: Assam (Assam present); Philippines (Philippines present); Thailand (Thailand present), Benguet Prov present, Burma present, Gajo Lands present, Khasya Mts present, Mergui present, N. Luzon present, N. Sumatra present, Penins.: Ranong present, S. Vietnam present, Sidikalang present, Tapanuli present, Tenasserim present, Toba-Batak area present
Assam (Khasya Mts), Burma (Tenasserim, Mergui), Thailand (Penins.: Ranong), S. Vietnam; in Malesia: N. Sumatra (Gajo Lands; Tapanuli: Sidikalang; Toba-Batak area) and Philippines (N. Luzon: Benguet Prov.). .
Notes
In addition to the morphological characters H. philippinensis has another ecology than H. chinensis; it is a true mountain species, although in the highest localities of H. chinensis the two species are found almost together (Toba-Batak Lands, Benguet).
In his original description MERRILL mentioned three syntypes of which I have examined MERRILL 4357 and 4444 (both in US, the latter also in L). Only the first fits the description and I have chosen this as lectotype; the second is wrongly identified and belongs to H. chinensis.
Until 1931 the Khasya specimens have always been confused with H. scabra by British botanists, and have been cited under H. tetragyna var. micrantha by those whose contention it was to merge these two species.
In his original description MERRILL mentioned three syntypes of which I have examined MERRILL 4357 and 4444 (both in US, the latter also in L). Only the first fits the description and I have chosen this as lectotype; the second is wrongly identified and belongs to H. chinensis.
Until 1931 the Khasya specimens have always been confused with H. scabra by British botanists, and have been cited under H. tetragyna var. micrantha by those whose contention it was to merge these two species.